Revell CSS Alabama 1961 kit: worth bidding on?

Arnie,

I have the Alabama in my stash while I try and finish all the builds I have going now.  My wife gave me the gun set last Christmas and I agree, they are nice and will go nicely with all the other ideas I have for her.

Steve

You can get a really fine set of guns from here

cottageindustrymodels.com

If you have read through this thread you should have noted that both models are contentious in regards to their accuracy, but can be built to a fine looking model regardless.

Come to think of it they were designed within 10-11 years of each other

The America is a perfect example of all of that.

Very informative lesson, thank you, Arnie.

Lee

"Raking the mast moves the center of effort of the sail or center of balance of the boat aft. This tends to push the boat into the wind, like a weathervane. Having a little of this helps pointing, because it tends to make the boat point up more. A little "windward helm", as this is called, is also a safety feature because it turns the boat into the wind (and waves) "automatically" in puffs so the boat is less likely to take on water or capsize. Having too much rake or windward helm makes the boat tend up so much that the helmsman has to have the tiller or rudder ''way off center to keep the boat headed off enough to keep the sails full. This is REALLY SLOW, because the rudder, angled way off the centerline, acts like a big brake. If the mast isn''t raked enough, the sail tends to turn the boat to leeward. This is perhaps faster, but does not help pointng. It is also dangerous, because a puff will make the boat head off, exposing more flattened sail area to the increasing wind, and can lead to capsizing and sinking. Some boats seem to work better with more weather helm than others. Some have almost neutral helms.

Historically, strongly raked masts in the 1800''s, for example, were also connected with improved windward ability. One of the reasons for this was that stongly leaning mast enabled the forestays of the time (100% natural fiber- subject to shrinkage, stretching, and rot) to be kept tighter. The extreme rake of the masts, however, moved the center of effort of the sails so far aft that to balance the vessels, the stern section of the hull was made deeper and longer. This created more wetted surface, which slows boats down. It''s a big balancing act."

what was the purpose of raking the masts?

Thats exciting Arnie. I look forward to the build.

Great! Thanks for the heads up on the FSM issues. Hoping I can get digital back issues since I have a digital subscription anyways.

BTW. My '61 Alabama arrived in the mail the other day. All the parts bags are still unopened and all the docs, including a "collectors" stamp are there as well. The rat lines have kind of melted on themselves, but I would never use them anyways, and the vacu sails are riddled w/ holes (mice?), but I had no intention of using them either. Now I have to get cracking on my Connie and get it done so I can start this one.

The July 2012 and the September 2012 FSM has articles on building a better Alabama.

If you don't spend the $ 28.11 on those drawings- you are there. You need to own that book.

I just looked at them again, and the rake on the masts tells me it almost certainly is not the Revell model. I don't get how the seller can not know the provenance. That stamp in the upper left corner looks pretty officious (is that a valid word?) and should give some hint to where they came from. I may just go ahead and get them, since as you said, they are reasonably priced.

BTW

I just plunked down $100 for a 1961 Revell CSS Alabama (parts still in unopened baggies)  which should arrive in the next few days, so I guess that I am committed to take on the challenge soon as I finish the Connie I am working on. Still looking for a 'reasonably' priced Bowcock book. If any one gets a lead on one for $50 or less, would love to hear about it.

I can't get the image big enough on my monitor to read any of the text.  It's obviously a modern drawing, intended for use by modelers.  And it looks remarkably like the Revell kit - down to those highly questionable, knee-high "windows" in the stern.  It looks to me like the drawing may just be based on the Revell kit.  But I can't tell for sure.  The price is certainly reasonable.

I just found these plans for sale on E-Bay. I PM'd the seller for source and scale, but he didn't know. Anyone recognize them? Worth getting?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/200922680415?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Thanks Steve.

The tracks, or sweeps, allowed  heavy guns stowed on the centerline of the deck to be moved to firing position at a gun port  on either side of the ship.  The gun pivoted on removable pins at the fore and aft ends of the gun carriage. The carriage was also equipped with iron rollers which ran on the sweeps. Typically, the rear pin was removed and the gun pivoted on the front pin towards the side of the ship that the gun was to be fired from.  The rear of the gun was rotated until it aligned with a second pivot point and the rear pin was reinserted.  The front pin was then removed and the front of the gun rotated until it reach a pivot point at the center of the gun port. The rear pin was removed and the gun could be trained about the front pivot and fired through the gun port.

That's a simple and brief explanation and there were variations.  If you ever get ahold of the Bowcock book there is an excellent diagram showing how it all works.

Long as I have the experts here, can anyone explain to me how the gun tracks worked. The pattern just does not make sense to me. I just can't figure out how the guns moved on them.

I need to retract a statement I made in an earlier post.  The likely builder's model in the Mariners' Museum is of the C.S.S. Florida, not the Alabama.  My bad - the sort of thing my senile memory does with increasing frequency these days.

The MM does have a nice 1/48 model of the Alabama that dates, if I remember right, from the sixties.  It was based on the best information available at that time - but probably differs considerably from Mr. Bowcock's plans.

Sorry about that.  Mea culpa.

Thanks guys. I won't be getting around to this till after New years or later. I will keep searching for a deal on the book in the meantime. Even at $74, it's still pretty high.

Regarding the Bowcock book - $80 was the best price I could find too.  I'm not surprised.  I don't remember what I paid for it when it was new,  but it wasn't cheap.  It probably was printed in limited numbers.

Have you checked out the Inter-Library Loan service?  The library in Portland may be a member; if not, and if there's a university within driving distance, you might try that.  Inter-Library Loan lends books to other member libraries, who loan them to customers.  The library may not let the book circulate, but that's why the good lord invented xerox machines....

It really is terrific book for modelers.  Personally, I wouldn't want to tackle this ship without that book.

Probably my last word on the matter as the subject does not really interest me, but here's a link to the museum in Birkenhead, near Liverpool, that may have decent information on this ship.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/ixRlBQZYRk-fzhALiFOeOA

Otherwise, here's a model that should be aspired to,

And you make a good point which I stand behind.

Ship models take 100s of hours. I always say do your best work at every stage.

Fair enough GMorrison, I did not mean to imply that the statement originated with you..  I have knowledge and experience with both kits and have done a fair amount of  investigation into what needs to be done to make more or less accurate models from them.  The Alabama kit is typically easier to find and less expensive than the Kearsarge kit, and someone who may buy an Alabama thinking it's a good staring point for the 1864 Kearsarge should be aware of what they may be getting into.  If there is any thing more difficult than making an accurate model of the Alabama from the Alabama kit it would be to make the Kearsarge from it.

And just to be clear, Steve, I hope it was clear from my post that I was simply passing on info from others and have no personal knowledge. I'll let those other opinions stand on their own.

I did look up Bowcock's book. I am not sure that I am willing to pay $80 to $400 (not a typo) for it. The local library (we have a magnificent one here in Portland) brings up zero results in a search. What to do? What to do? This whole discussion is, not unlike the Constitution, rife w/ differing perspectives relating to accuracy. Most interesting! Thank you all for your input on this. It has been very, very helpful.

GMorrison

The Alabama is indeed a revised Kearsarge, as Tilley notes, however it's a very good basis for a Kearsarge from 1864.

I have seen this statement made several times over the years, but I have never understood the reasoning behind it.  The Kearsarge kit hull does represent the ship in the 1880s, but is also mostly correct for the earlier ship as well. The main visual difference is the height of the bulwarks, which aft of the raised forecastle deck should be cut down to the tops of the gun ports.  This is a fairly easy modification for a modeler to make.

 On the other hand, for the Alabama hull to correctly represent the Kearsarge, the head would have to be completely reworked, the forward bulwarks raised and a forecastle deck scratch built, the gun ports filled and new ones correctly sized and located for Kearsarge cut in, and the false stern windows filled in.  In addition, the deck and fittings are correct, or mostly correct, for Kearsarge, while the deck and fittings in the Alabama kit are correct for nothing. The thought seems to be that since the Alabama hull already has lower bulwarks it is a better starting point for the Kearsarge, but in my opinion, if one wishes to build an 1864 Kearsarge, starting with the Alabama kit offers no advantages and many disadvantages.  The best reference for the Civil War Kearsarge is Arthur C Roberts’ four part series of articles staring in the Dec 1999 Nautical Research Journal.

arnie60

There will be some discrepancies that I am going to let ride, such as the hull length (11' short is only 1 3/8" difference at scale) and probably the tail, which I understand should be a clean curve. Now all I have to do is find one at a decent price.

Several years ago I posted a somewhat lengthy explanation of why I felt that the two ships were very close dimensionally and that the Revell Alabama hull was not far off in length.The full post is here:

http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/7/t/114125.aspx

but the short version is that, because of variations in the way British and American ships were apparently measured, for Alabama the Revell hull may be less than ½” too short.

I'm no expert on the Alabama, but I do know that if you want to build a model of her there's one book you've gotta get:  Andrew Bowcock's CSS Alabama, Anatomy of a Confederate Raider. It was published originally by
Chatham Publishing, of London, in 2002, and in the U.S. by the Naval Institute Press.  I'm not sure whether it's still in print, but used and library copies should be pretty easy to find.

Mr. Bowcock did an enormous amount of research in the materials that have become available since the sixties.  (We shouldn't be too hard on Revell; a lot of the stuff Mr. Bowcock found was virtually unknown when the kit was designed.)  The book includes a nice, detailed set of plans, and copies of every known photo of the ship (including a couple of tiny overall shots taken in Singapore).  I suspect somebody's found a few more tidbits of material since the book was published, but the book clearly is the place to start.

If you're within driving distance of Newport News, Virginia, you'd enjoy taking a trip to the Mariners' Museum.  It has a model which certainly appears to be the "builder's model" of the Alabama.

Getting from that old Revell fossil to a genuine scale model of the ship would be a long haul, but a fascinating one.  I'm not at all sure that scratchbuilding wouldn't be quicker.  But good luck.